Could Star Trek: Discovery explore how to engineer peace and trust?
Okay, it's a little premature to guess at what the themes of a show that isn't even released are going to be, but I thought I would take a shot at looking at a potential theme for fun, based on these three things:
The Vulcan logician Surak would say that all sentient species are capable of arriving at a common understanding, because logic is universal to all life, and it is upon this principle that the Federation aims (in theory at least), to operate. Isn't it always more logical to heal and cooperate, than to risk death for no reason?
Why should organisms ever evolve to seek to harm other organisms?
Organisms are selected to deploy violence only in circumstances where the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs. The discernment is especially true of intelligent species, whose large brains make them sensitive to the expected benefits and costs in a particular situation, rather than just to the odds averaged over evolutionary time.
The second cause of quarrel is diffidence, a word that in Hobbes's time meant 'fear' rather than 'shyness'. The second cause is a consequence of the first; competition breeds fear. If you have reason to suspect that your neighbor is inclined to eliminate you from the competition by, say, killing you, then you will be inclined to protect yourself by eliminating him first in a preemptive strike. You might have this temptation even if you otherwise wouldn't hurt a fly, as long as you are not willing to lie down and be killed. The tragedy is that your competitor has every reason to crank through the same calculation, even if he is the kind of person who wouldn't hurt a fly. In fact, even if he knew that you started out with no aggressive designs on him, he might legitimately worry that you are tempted to neutralize him out of fear that he will neutralize you first, which gives you an incentive to neutralize him before than, ad infinitum. ... This paradox is known as the Hobbesian trap, or in the arena of international relations, the security dilemma.
How can intelligent agents extricate themselves from a Hobbesian trap? The most obvious way is through a policy of deterrence: Don't strike first; be strong strong enough to survive a first strike; and retaliate against any aggressor in kind. A credible deterrence policy can remove a competitor's incentive to invade for gain, since the cost imposed on him by retaliation would cancel out the anticipated spoils. And it removes the his incentive to invade from fear, because your commitment not to strike first and, most importantly, because of your reduced incentive to strike first , since deterrence reduces the need for preemption. The key to deterrence policy, though, is the credibility of the threat that you will retaliate. If your adversary thinks that you're vulnerable to being wiped out in a first strike, he has no reason to fear retaliation. And if he thinks that once attacked you may rationally hold back from retaliation, because at that point it's too late to do any good, he might exploit that rationality and attack you with impunity. Only if you are committed to disprove any suspicion of weakness, to avenge all trespasses and settle all scores, will your policy of deterrence be credible. Thus we have an explanation of the incentive to invade for reputation: a word, smile, and other other sign of undervalue. Hobbes called it 'glory'; more commonly it is called 'honor'; the most accurate descriptor is 'credibility'.
Thanks to the process of logical institutions being built and superstition being vanquished, the human race has less and less tolerance for honor based violence, and bluster - it has increasingly extracted itself from processes like the Hobbsian trap. By the 23rd century, in Star Trek, the human race has progressed even further to the point where, aside from the occasional crime of passion, there is virtually no homicide or tribal violence on Earth. It has furthermore inducted a member planet that has an even stronger record - the planet Vulcan - which before it embraced rationality, was a distrustful, passionate and violent world. Understanding emotion and controlling it with reason allowed them to flourish.
As Vulcan technology improved, their ability to inflict violence increased, to the point where their entire planet's destruction was possible. Sensing that it could be the end of their race and ecosystem, the philosopher Surak argued a new way should be found - that the ultimate cause of violence was emotion - and offered an ideology of reason to counter the destruction Vulcan's armies and nuclear weapons could bring. This was Vulcan's philosophical and scientific Time of Awakening.
The idea is not limited to Vulcan. The Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment were like Surak's Time of Awakening for some countries on Earth - a time when reason gradually won over the superstition and dogma of the age. And conceivably, the Klingon Empire's citizens could come to see how wasteful their leader's obsession with war can be, and how their social system is causing unnecessary suffering. Until then, Starfleet must negotiate for peace.
Humans, a rational animal, can choose to dispassionately observe the fear generated by their amigdala and instead act in a logical manner, building institutions that resolve violence through diplomacy and compromise (backed up by a healthy bunch of Starbases). Choosing productive emotions and not becoming ensnared by cyclical thinking and complexes such as paranoia and prejudice. Looking at empirical evidence, instead of short term fears. Seeing other life as fundamentally worthy of empathy, instead of alien. The Federation extends this to other sentient organisms. It however encounters governments that are imperial and operate on an old paradigm - the Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, Cardassian Union, and others.
Fear and conflict are not alien to the Federation, because the threat posed by these imperial powers causes members of Starfleet to take up increasingly militant stances in an effort to dissuade the other powers from attacking. This sparks off a Hobbsian trap of mutual deterrence with the Klingon Empire in particular - a Cold War in space. Fear of the threat posed by the Klingons, has occasionally driven members of Starfleet toward greater and greater militarism, and an abandonment of their ideals - including Admiral Marcus and Admiral Cartwright.
The Klingon Empire is also motivated by fear, fear of the Federation, it's societal appeal, it's political acumen, and it's vast resources. They too are motivated by their genes toward distrust, and ideology serves to justify imperialism or violence - but like humans, Klingons are not solely emotional - but rational and intelligent life forms - their violence is not blind - it is strategic - it will only be applied if there is gain to be made - or if existential fear overrides their better judgement. They are not a fantasy army, they are a living people.
The Federation, and indeed any pluralistic society, seeks to alleviate all these biological worries among it's members, through understanding - by distributing resources equally among a union, providing common security, and educating the reasons for violence so that beings can make a rational choice to avoid it's psychology.
It seeks to extend this kind of relationship to form an equitable pact with it's neighbors - in theory, the Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, Breen Confedracy, Cardassian Union and Tholian Assembly - but either through a deeply fearful and militaristic culture, or the vanity of not wanting to give up their ideology and violent identity, they are not willing to come to terms with the Federation - many of these cultures, the Cardassians, Klingons and Romulans, tolerate the evil that their leaders do to their people, out of fear of others - barring dissidents, the survival of their empires is commonly seen by citizens as self-justification for any action their leaders do. This drives members of the Federation into similar militarism in response. It drives small civilizations into Federation membership out of fear of the other Empires, it drives autocrats to ally with the big empires to prevent the Federation's influence.
But to make peace with the Klingons requires an understanding of the Klingons. We know that Sarek, Spock's father, and future ambassador, is going to be a character in the series. Is his presence more important than we realize? The great issue of Star Trek: Discovery's era is how the Federation extracts itself from a Hobbsian trap with their neighbors - the Klingon Empire. At the moment, they are in a Balance of Terror situation - peace is maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. But as the Organians tell Kirk "one day, you and the Klingons will be friends".
Okay, it's a little premature to guess at what the themes of a show that isn't even released are going to be, but I thought I would take a shot at looking at a potential theme for fun, based on these three things:
- ). Balance of Terror is a touchstone
- ). The Undiscovered Country is a touchstone
- ). Klingons will play a large part in the show
The Vulcan logician Surak would say that all sentient species are capable of arriving at a common understanding, because logic is universal to all life, and it is upon this principle that the Federation aims (in theory at least), to operate. Isn't it always more logical to heal and cooperate, than to risk death for no reason?
Speaking to The Radio Times, Fuller was asked to describe what the new show was all about and he offered three words: “Understand Each Other.”
How do you understand a hostile warrior culture like the Klingons? Well, in real life, violence is in decline, even among cultures that were once extremely militaristic - just look at Japan or Germany. In his book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, Steven Pinker explained that violence has been in decline for 12,000 years, from casualty rates of up to 60% in war during the paleolithic, to rates of less than 1% now. We live in the least violent time in all of human history. He talks about the three motives that lead to violence - gain, safety and reputation:
Why should organisms ever evolve to seek to harm other organisms?
Organisms are selected to deploy violence only in circumstances where the expected benefits outweigh the expected costs. The discernment is especially true of intelligent species, whose large brains make them sensitive to the expected benefits and costs in a particular situation, rather than just to the odds averaged over evolutionary time.
The second cause of quarrel is diffidence, a word that in Hobbes's time meant 'fear' rather than 'shyness'. The second cause is a consequence of the first; competition breeds fear. If you have reason to suspect that your neighbor is inclined to eliminate you from the competition by, say, killing you, then you will be inclined to protect yourself by eliminating him first in a preemptive strike. You might have this temptation even if you otherwise wouldn't hurt a fly, as long as you are not willing to lie down and be killed. The tragedy is that your competitor has every reason to crank through the same calculation, even if he is the kind of person who wouldn't hurt a fly. In fact, even if he knew that you started out with no aggressive designs on him, he might legitimately worry that you are tempted to neutralize him out of fear that he will neutralize you first, which gives you an incentive to neutralize him before than, ad infinitum. ... This paradox is known as the Hobbesian trap, or in the arena of international relations, the security dilemma.
How can intelligent agents extricate themselves from a Hobbesian trap? The most obvious way is through a policy of deterrence: Don't strike first; be strong strong enough to survive a first strike; and retaliate against any aggressor in kind. A credible deterrence policy can remove a competitor's incentive to invade for gain, since the cost imposed on him by retaliation would cancel out the anticipated spoils. And it removes the his incentive to invade from fear, because your commitment not to strike first and, most importantly, because of your reduced incentive to strike first , since deterrence reduces the need for preemption. The key to deterrence policy, though, is the credibility of the threat that you will retaliate. If your adversary thinks that you're vulnerable to being wiped out in a first strike, he has no reason to fear retaliation. And if he thinks that once attacked you may rationally hold back from retaliation, because at that point it's too late to do any good, he might exploit that rationality and attack you with impunity. Only if you are committed to disprove any suspicion of weakness, to avenge all trespasses and settle all scores, will your policy of deterrence be credible. Thus we have an explanation of the incentive to invade for reputation: a word, smile, and other other sign of undervalue. Hobbes called it 'glory'; more commonly it is called 'honor'; the most accurate descriptor is 'credibility'.
Thanks to the process of logical institutions being built and superstition being vanquished, the human race has less and less tolerance for honor based violence, and bluster - it has increasingly extracted itself from processes like the Hobbsian trap. By the 23rd century, in Star Trek, the human race has progressed even further to the point where, aside from the occasional crime of passion, there is virtually no homicide or tribal violence on Earth. It has furthermore inducted a member planet that has an even stronger record - the planet Vulcan - which before it embraced rationality, was a distrustful, passionate and violent world. Understanding emotion and controlling it with reason allowed them to flourish.
As Vulcan technology improved, their ability to inflict violence increased, to the point where their entire planet's destruction was possible. Sensing that it could be the end of their race and ecosystem, the philosopher Surak argued a new way should be found - that the ultimate cause of violence was emotion - and offered an ideology of reason to counter the destruction Vulcan's armies and nuclear weapons could bring. This was Vulcan's philosophical and scientific Time of Awakening.
The idea is not limited to Vulcan. The Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment were like Surak's Time of Awakening for some countries on Earth - a time when reason gradually won over the superstition and dogma of the age. And conceivably, the Klingon Empire's citizens could come to see how wasteful their leader's obsession with war can be, and how their social system is causing unnecessary suffering. Until then, Starfleet must negotiate for peace.
Humans, a rational animal, can choose to dispassionately observe the fear generated by their amigdala and instead act in a logical manner, building institutions that resolve violence through diplomacy and compromise (backed up by a healthy bunch of Starbases). Choosing productive emotions and not becoming ensnared by cyclical thinking and complexes such as paranoia and prejudice. Looking at empirical evidence, instead of short term fears. Seeing other life as fundamentally worthy of empathy, instead of alien. The Federation extends this to other sentient organisms. It however encounters governments that are imperial and operate on an old paradigm - the Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, Cardassian Union, and others.
Fear and conflict are not alien to the Federation, because the threat posed by these imperial powers causes members of Starfleet to take up increasingly militant stances in an effort to dissuade the other powers from attacking. This sparks off a Hobbsian trap of mutual deterrence with the Klingon Empire in particular - a Cold War in space. Fear of the threat posed by the Klingons, has occasionally driven members of Starfleet toward greater and greater militarism, and an abandonment of their ideals - including Admiral Marcus and Admiral Cartwright.
The Klingon Empire is also motivated by fear, fear of the Federation, it's societal appeal, it's political acumen, and it's vast resources. They too are motivated by their genes toward distrust, and ideology serves to justify imperialism or violence - but like humans, Klingons are not solely emotional - but rational and intelligent life forms - their violence is not blind - it is strategic - it will only be applied if there is gain to be made - or if existential fear overrides their better judgement. They are not a fantasy army, they are a living people.
The Federation, and indeed any pluralistic society, seeks to alleviate all these biological worries among it's members, through understanding - by distributing resources equally among a union, providing common security, and educating the reasons for violence so that beings can make a rational choice to avoid it's psychology.
It seeks to extend this kind of relationship to form an equitable pact with it's neighbors - in theory, the Klingon Empire, Romulan Star Empire, Breen Confedracy, Cardassian Union and Tholian Assembly - but either through a deeply fearful and militaristic culture, or the vanity of not wanting to give up their ideology and violent identity, they are not willing to come to terms with the Federation - many of these cultures, the Cardassians, Klingons and Romulans, tolerate the evil that their leaders do to their people, out of fear of others - barring dissidents, the survival of their empires is commonly seen by citizens as self-justification for any action their leaders do. This drives members of the Federation into similar militarism in response. It drives small civilizations into Federation membership out of fear of the other Empires, it drives autocrats to ally with the big empires to prevent the Federation's influence.
But to make peace with the Klingons requires an understanding of the Klingons. We know that Sarek, Spock's father, and future ambassador, is going to be a character in the series. Is his presence more important than we realize? The great issue of Star Trek: Discovery's era is how the Federation extracts itself from a Hobbsian trap with their neighbors - the Klingon Empire. At the moment, they are in a Balance of Terror situation - peace is maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. But as the Organians tell Kirk "one day, you and the Klingons will be friends".
Last edited:
